snark: a (well-deserved) attitude of mocking irreverence and sarcasm

September 07, 2019

As the saying goes, there's a time and place for everything. Like, being a political moderate. Or, a political extremist. It doesn't make sense to always embrace one or the other.

Sure, it sounds good to hear politicians say, "I want to work with those on the other side of the aisle."

But sometimes those on the other end of the political spectrum aren't interested in compromise and moderation. Barack Obama found this out when Republicans in Congress opposed almost everything he put forward.

For example, a lot of time was wasted trying to get the GOP on board with the Affordable Care Act when all Republicans wanted to do was scuttle it.

Frequently I hear people claim that local politics is different.

They believe that conservative and progressive elected officials here in Salem can join hands and agree on policies that would be better than what those on the political right and left could come up with on their own. Well, maybe. I'm skeptical about this, though.

One reason is that I'm dubious our local Republicans and Democrats are markedly different from those inhabiting the halls of Congress or the corridors of the Oregon legislature.

Here in Salem the Mayor and city councilors are nominally non-partisan, lacking a "D" or "R" after their name.

But almost always it's obvious where their political leaning lies. And it's well known that over the past few decades the Republican Party has veered rightward to a much greater degree than the Democratic Party has tilted leftward.

The following graphics show the average ideology of the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress since World War II. In recent years, the Republican party has become far more conservative than the Democratic party has become liberal.

So meeting in the middle no longer results in genuine moderation, given that Republican positions have steadily become more extreme than Democratic positions.

Another reason I'm wary of moderation, whether on the national, state, or local level, is that some issues cry out for urgent, all hands on deck, full bore action.

Climate change and income inequality are two issues that demand thoughtful extremism. Our planet isn't going to remain habitable for humans without drastic immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Finding a middle ground on global warming means losing a fight that has to be won.

The City of Salem is embarking on a Climate Action Plan aimed at reducing our city's carbon pollution. That's great. However, not so great has been the resistance by Steve Powers, the City Manager, to doing what needs to be done in this area.

Often the inertia of City staff to implementing policy goals established by the City Council is irksome rather than dangerous. In the case of a Climate Action Plan, though, nothing short of 100% dedication to markedly lowering Salem's greenhouse gas emissions is acceptable.

This won't happen by tinkering around the edges of current policies. Urban sprawl, incessant road building, and excessive reliance on gas-powered vehicles have played a big role in getting Salem, Oregon, and the United States into the climate change mess we're in now.

Reversing our way out of that catastrophe, whose effects are becoming increasingly evident, won't happen by splitting the difference between the views of global warming realists and deniers. The deniers are on the wrong side of science and of humanity, whether they sit in Congress or the Salem City Council chambers.

Income inequality isn't as obvious a local issue. Here too, though, there are signs that City officials aren't taking the widening divide between the 1% and 99% (or 10% and 90%) as seriously as they should be.

Both of these revenue streams would hit ordinary people more than the wealthy in Salem. For example, reportedly a single family home would pay an $8 a month operating fee, while Salem Hospital (along with other commercial properties) would pay $38.56 a month.

This seems decidedly unbalanced. No doubt the Chamber of Commerce is pleased with these proposals, but it's hard to see how they reduce income inequality in Salem, which surely is increasing here as rapidly as it is elsewhere in our country.

I could be wrong -- an ever-present possibility -- but I sense that people in Salem, as elsewhere in the United States, are hungry for Big Ideas that improve the lives of ordinary people.

Modern Republicans, by and large, are silent in this area. Their focus is on further improving the lives of the rich and powerful. This is why many of the Democratic presidential candidates are garnering so much attention for their Big Ideas in the areas of the environment, health care, education, and so on.

I'm hoping that Salem will be fertile ground for our own Big Ideas, some of which are seedlings in the minds of our six progressive city councilors. Hopefully those ideas will grow into fertile reality. If they do, likely a look back will reveal that it wasn't moderation that brought them into being, but a passionate extremism.

August 18, 2019

Bad decisions have consequences. Daniel Rollings, a member of Salem's Human Rights Commission, resigned his position today after City officials ignored the unanimous statement of the Commission calling for a location other than the Capital Press building owned by the Salem Alliance Church to be used as a temporary public library.

Rollings testifying against using the church-owned building

The Human Rights Commission took that action because the church denies LGBTQ rights, and members of the LGBTQ community have said they won't use the library if it is housed in a building leased from an organization that considers them second-class citizens.

Here's the resignation email that Rollings sent:

Mayor Bennett & HRC Chair Meyer,

In light of the recent actions by City Council and the lack of transparency in regards to the site selection of the temporary library, I am officially tendering my resignation from the City's Human Rights Commission. I refuse to be a rubber stamp on a City Commission and don't feel as if the City Council listened to the Human Rights issues presented about this very real concern.

Furthermore, I do not believe City staff was earnest in their efforts in selecting a location, the City has not been upfront and transparent in regards to the communication about said site (particularly the Open Record Requests that have been made), and the disparaging remarks made (at a recorded library meeting) by a City Councilor about the LGBTQ community and an LGBTQ organization in Salem is very disheartening. This is a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community and I am aghast at this behavior. Sadly, when this is coupled with the recent hate crime against an LGBTQ youth and his family (that made national news), the City of Salem is proving to NOT be an open and welcoming community.

Please accept this e-mail as my official and immediate resignation.

Respectfully,

- Daniel Rollings

I admire Rollings for standing up for LGBTQ rights.

I wish I could say the same about the Salem City Council, but I can't, since the council voted 6-1 to approve a lease that funnels almost half a million dollars of taxpayer money into the bank account of the LGBTQ-unfriendly Salem Alliance Church.

Councilor Jackie Leung was the only council member who did the right thing and voted "Nay." The "Aye" Hall of Shame consists of Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilors Chris Hoy, Cara Kaser, Matt Ausec, Jim Lewis, and Brad Nanke.

(Councilors Tom Andersen and Sally Cook were absent; their representatives said they would have opposed approving the lease agreement.)

This episode has been a well-deserved public relations disaster for the City of Salem. Willamette Week ran a story with a right-on headline.

Daniel Rollings is entirely justified in being deeply upset at City officials.

As I noted in a blog post about the disturbing wrongness of the City Council decision to go along with the horribly flawed choice of the church-owned building for a temporary library, even though virtually all of the written and verbal testimony from citizens was in opposition to leasing the Capital Press building, no one on the City Council asked any obvious questions of City staff.

Like, since the lease for the Capital Press building will cost less than what was budgeted for a temporary library, are there other locations in Salem that would cost more, but wouldn't carry the baggage of the library being in a building owned by an organization that opposes LGBTQ rights?

I talked with two commercial realtors who told me that, of course, other viable locations exist for a temporary library. But apparently nobody on the City Council thought of doing the same thing, even though I told the council in both written and verbal testimony what I learned from the commercial realtors.

In his resignation letter, Rollings alluded to a public records request I've filed (and paid $476.80 for) that has resulted in exactly zero records being delivered after two weeks. Worse, I've been told that City of Salem staff have to review over 2,700 emails to decide which ones relate to the choice of the church-owned building for a temporary library.

I've been told that it will be at least another two weeks before that job is done, and it could end up costing me more. So it sure seems like either City officials are hoping I'll give up on my public records request (which isn't going to happen), or record-keeping by the City of Salem is astoundingly inept.

Here's one more bit of weirdness. Today the Statesman Journal ran a lengthy story about how the Salem Alliance Church has been buying up a lot of property surrounding its church, which includes the Capital Press building that will house a temporary public library.

What's weird is that the story by Tracy Loew isn't on the Statesman Journal web site, even though it was prominently featured above the fold in the MidValley section. I wanted to share a link to the story on Facebook, so searched for the story both on the Statesman Journal web site, on the paper's Facebook page, and via Google News.

Nothing. I emailed Tracy Loew and her colleague Jonathan Bach, asking for a link to the online story. No response. It sure looks like the Statesman Journal doesn't want this story to be accessible online via Google or Google News. Which is too bad, since this part of the story calls out for sharing.

They complain that some of Salem Alliance's properties are dilapidated, boarded up and targets for crime. Conversely, they worry about neighborhood gentrification.

And they object to mixing religion with business and city affairs.

The latter came to a boil last month when the city of Salem leased the former Capital Press building, which the church bought a few months ago, to house its public library while the library building is renovated.

Critics say members of the LGBTQ community, or others uncomfortable with conservative evangelical religion, won't feel welcome in the church-owned building.

That's exactly what the Salem Human Rights Commission said in its statement condemning use of the church-owned building for a temporary library. But as Rollings noted in his resignation letter, Councilor Jim Lewis' attitude was, if someone supports LGBTQ rights and doesn't want to use the temporary library, too bad.

And with the exception of Jackie Leung, the rest of the City Council in attendance at the July 22 meeting went along with using the church-owned building -- knowing full well that some members of the community won't use the library for the two years or so it will be housed in that building.

Here's what Rollings told the City Council. Other videos are in the preceding blog post link. Thank you, Daniel, for your heartfelt honest testimony, and for having the courage to resign from the Human Rights Commission in protest of City officials and the City Council denying LGBTQ rights.

August 17, 2019

"It shouldn't be this difficult." That's what runs through my mind, too often, when it comes to getting public records from the City of Salem.

(Oregon variety; maybe the Massachusetts Salem can conjure up a spell and get records to requestors more easily, given their witch heritage.)

Here's a chronology of my current frustration:

July 29, 2019. Request submitted. I fill out a Public Records Request form, scan it, and email it to the City Recorder's office, which oversees requests. I ask for:

All documents, emails, and other communications relating to the use of the Capital Press building owned by the Salem Alliance Church as a temporary public library by the City of Salem.

August 1, 2019. Cost estimate provided and paid. I get an email from a legal assistant in the City of Salem Legal Department. Rather confusingly, these two items are checked under "In response to your public records request:"

-- The City is the custodian of (maintains) the requested record(s). (IT Dept, City Manager's Office, Urban Development Dept.)-- The City is uncertain whether it maintains the requested record(s). (CD Library)

I'm perplexed by the "uncertain" statement. What the heck is a CD Library?

We're not talking about ancient history here. The controversial selection of the church-owned building to house a temporary library (because the Salem Alliance Church denies LGBTQ rights) happened this spring and summer. So how could these records not be maintained by the City of Salem?

I'm given a cost estimate of $476.80 to get the records.

Only six hours of staff time are required, plus $10 for a CD. However, two hours are for someone making $89.90 an hour, two hours are for someone making $96.80 an hour, and two hours ae for someone making $46.70 an hour.

Annualizing that hourly wage (40 hours/week times 52 weeks/year), I find that my humble request is being handled by staff costing $186,992, $201,344, and $97,136 a year. Heading to Amazon, I also find that a bundle of 100 recordable CDs can be had for $17, or seventeen cents a CD, with free shipping. So $10 for a CD seems outrageous. As does the hourly staff time costs.

Nonetheless, I drive to the City Recorder's office that same day and pay the amount requested. Why? Choose one or more reasons, all valid: (1) I'm crazy. (2) I'm obsessed with the temporary library issue. (3) I care deeply about LGBTQ rights. (4) I believe in government transparency.

August 16, 2019. Things have changed. Yesterday I saw that I'd gotten an email about my public records request. Since two weeks had passed since I'd forked over the $476.80, at first I thought that the records were being sent to me. But no, the email said something else.

Mr. Hines:

I wanted to let you know that due to the voluminous amount of records associated with your request and the staff time that it will take to review the records, I estimate the records will not be available for release until August 30, 2019, and perhaps even later . To give you some idea of the magnitude of the request, the initial email sweep contained a whopping 2,700+ emails! Right now, we’re in the process of narrowing the scope of the search as much as we can, to reduce the amount of non-responsive records that were captured in the initial email sweep, since we must review each email one-by-one to ensure they’re responsive to the request.

Please note, there may be additional costs for the review time, but we’ll send you an estimate if or when one becomes available.

Thank you for your patience.

Sincerely,

Amy JohnsonDeputy City RecorderCity of Salem

Before I comment on Johnson's message, I want to say that I've found the City Recorder's Office to be, by and large, efficient and responsive to my public records requests. The problems exist elsewhere in the City of Salem bureaucracy, I'm quite confident. That said...

How is it possible that 2,700+ emails are associated with the selection of the Capital Press building owned by the Salem Alliance Church as a temporary library location? Not knowing how it would be possible, naturally now I'm more curious than ever to learn what those emails say.

Which is what I'm going to tell Johnson when I reply to her message: please don't leave out any emails relating to the subject of my public records request. Yet I'm also going to tell her that I don't consider I should have to pay for staff time involved in sorting through irrelevant email messages.

Look, I'm not a highly organized person. But I do get dozens of emails a day, some of them important. For example, for the past few months I've been working on getting a book I wrote ready to be sold on Amazon. (Click here to see the Break Free of Dogma Amazon listing.)

I save the messages from the book designer and Amazon/Kindle Direct Publishing staff in a special folder. Ditto for documents related to the book project. If someone wanted to see all the documents related to my book, it'd be easy for me to find the emails and documents.

So I don't understand why the City of Salem has such difficulty locating communications related to my public records request. It sure seems like City staff should be required to keep all emails and documents concerning a project in specific folders -- mostly digital, but in paper form also when there is no electronic copy.

It seems very strange that someone has to review every one of 2,700+ email messages in order to comply with my public records request. Again, I want all of the relevant communications, and I don't want to have to pay the City of Salem to find communications related to my request that should have been properly organized from the outset.

Also, a public records request shouldn't take a month or more to fulfill, as Johnson says is likely.

Nor should it cost markedly more than the original cost estimate. It sure seems like the City of Salem staff responsible for selecting the Capital Press building for a temporary library would have a very good idea of how many emails and other documents were involved in this effort.

I'm going to ask for a fee waiver, given that my public records request is very much in the public interest, given how controversial it was to choose the church-owned building for a temporary library.

At the very least, I don't believe I should be charged any more than the original cost estimate, especially since it now appears that it is going to take a month or more for the City of Salem to fulfill my public records request.

August 02, 2019

I thought I couldn't get any more irritated at the Salem City Council and City officials, and I was plenty mad before, but now I'm way more pissed off.

I just learned that those officials have signed a contract with the Salem Alliance Church to lease a building owned by the church for a temporary public library, even though City Council rules allow for reconsideration of any council decision at the next meeting, which is August 12.

The City Council voted to approve the lease on a 6-1 vote at the July 22 council meeting. But this was a hugely controversial issue. And two councilors were absent, Tom Andersen and Sally Cook. Jackie Leung was the sole sane vote in opposition to this crazy idea.

There are alternative locations to house a temporary library, such as Liberty Plaza, which was one of the top three choices of the Library Renovation Subcommittee. Virtually everybody who submitted written or verbal testimony to the City Council was against using the church-owned Capital Press building.

And people have been contacting the Mayor and city councilors urging that the City Council reconsider approval of the Salem Alliance Church lease agreement at the council's next meeting on August 12. Reconsideration is allowed by a City Council rule.

Yet a little while ago I learned that City staff went ahead and signed the Salem Alliance Church contract, thereby taking away the ability for this issue to be reconsidered by the City Council -- essentially screaming a loud Screw you! at supporters of LGBTQ rights in Salem.

Jackie Leung, the sole no vote on the use of Salem Alliance Church property for the temporary Library, kindly responded to my questions about whether anything could be done at this point. She said:

"Because I voted no, I am not able to ask for a reconsideration. One of the councilors, such as Councilor Kaser, who voted yes, will need to call it up. I can issue a plea at the council meeting for reconsideration, though no one may do so.

It also depends on if city council already signed a lease with SAC. If it has already been signed, I am afraid that there is no way to stop it from moving forward. As a frequent library user, it also concerns me about the use of the Capitol Press and what it means to our community.

Thank you for your email. Please continue reaching out to Councilor Kaser. Perhaps she will be willing to request a reconsideration if it is not too late."

Then I found out that the lease has been already signed. But before that, I contacted Councilor Cara Kaser (Ward 1, in which I live). Here is what she wrote:

"I hope you either watched live or the recording of City Council meeting when this issue was discussed. Councilor Chris Hoy summed up my position on this issue exactly. If you didn’t get a chance to watch Councilor Hoy’s remarks, I hope that you will.

The Library sub-committee charged with finding a temporary build to house the library collection recommended this location after going through several other properties. For one reason and another, the former Capital Press building was the only feasible site to relocate the library and met the sub-committee’s criteria for relocation.

The building is owned by a religious organization but the building itself is not a religious building (i.e. it’s not a church, sanctuary, chapel, etc.). Also, the building will be under lease and operated by the City, and not by a religious organization.

The City will follow it’s own ordinances and codes of conduct while the library is at this temporary location, just as it follows rules now at the permanent library site. Because of this, I believe that the temporary location for the library will be a welcoming and accepting place for all members of our community, just like our permanent library location is now."

Since I already knew that the property was owned by SAC and not a "religious" building, the only thing to take away from Councilor Kaser's comment is that her position was the same as Hoy's.

And Hoy's pertinent comment was that basically "if we (the City) scrutinizes all entities that the City does business with, it is a slippery slope"

...And my comment regarding that is that if the City does NOT look at the policies of entities, then THAT is the real slippery slope.

Would the City do business with an entity with an avowed white nationalist agenda? Would the City do business with an entity that was against marriage between different races? I think not.

So why are LGBTQIA people, their friends, allies, and loved ones being thrown under the bus? Answer that please, "progressive" council members.

Great question.

Councilors Hoy, Kaser, and Ausec, each of whom claims to be progressive, along with Mayor Bennett and councilors Lewis and Nanke, all knew full well that the Human Rights Commission and LGBTQ community in Salem understood that the temporary library was going to be operated by City staff, not by the church.

That was irrelevant to supporters of LGBTQ rights. Which makes what Councilor Kaser said above, and what Councilor Hoy said at the July 22 council meeting, also irrelevant.

What mattered is what Stephens said: the Salem Alliance Church opposes LGBTQ rights.

Yet not only does the City of Salem see no problem with paying almost $500,000 to the Salem Alliance Church to house a temporary library that won't be used by members of the LGBTQ community and their supporters, it rushed ahead with signing the lease contract in order to prevent public opinion from forcing a reconsideration vote at the August 12 council meeting.

UPDATE: I just realized that there's a decent chance one or more of the six members of the City Council who voted to go ahead with leasing the church owned library for a temporary library pressed City staff to sign the Salem Alliance Church lease before the next council meeting to avoid the spectacle of a reconsideration request being discussed at the meeting.

Also, here's a cogent comment from ardent library supporter Jim Scheppke that he left on a Facebook page where I shared this blog post:

"I agree with Brian that the City staff should have waited until after the August 12th meeting to sign the lease to allow Councilors Cook and Andersen to weigh in on this issue on behalf of their constituents. We heard at the last meeting from substitute Councilor Evan White that Councilor Cook was opposed to leasing the church property. I would not be surprised to learn that Councilor Andersen is also opposed.

There was very little discussion of the issue at the last meeting because it came at the end of a long meeting and the Councilors were clearly rushing through the end of the agenda as they often do. A decision that affects a large portion of the community (LGBTQ citizens and their friends, family and supporters and others who care deeply about human rights) should not be railroaded. I also disagree that the church building was the only viable choice. I think that's false. It was the cheapest choice."

Disgusting. Outrageous. Shameful. And those are the least profane words that spring to mind.

Yesterday I paid $476.80 to the City of Salem for the required fee to get public records related to the selection of the church-owned Capital Press building for a temporary library.

I submitted the public records request because I figured there was a good chance I'd get the documents prior to the August 12 City Council meeting where a reconsideration might have been discussed.

I figured wrong, failing to anticipate that City officials would forestall reconsideration by rushing ahead with signing the contract, even though the library won't start moving into a temporary location until December.

However, I'm still glad that I'm getting the documents and emails, because I believe the public needs to understand as clearly as possible how this horrible choice of the Capital Press building happened.

July 30, 2019

On July 22 the Salem City Council voted to approve a lease with the Salem Alliance Church for use of their Capital Press building as a temporary library, while the library at the Civic Center is undergoing renovations.

City officials claimed in a staff report that the church-owned building "is the best and only option available to the City that meets the project schedule and site criteria."

Almost certainly that statement is wrong, for reasons I'll describe below.

I don't blame the City Council for trusting the staff report. I blame Steve Powers, the City Manager, and Kristin Retherford, the Urban Development Director, for affixing their names to what sure seems to be a misleading staff report, at best, and a purposely deceptive staff report, at worst.

Keep in mind that I searched the staff report for any mention of what the site criteria were for choosing a temporary library location. No luck.

The Salem Human Rights Commission statement said that an alternative location for a temporary library should be selected even if it costs more to lease than the Capital Press building and is less efficient operationally.

In my testimony on July 22 I told the City Council that a commercial realtor here in Salem told me that yes, there certainly are alternative locations for a temporary library. And today I spoke with the realtor responsible for leasing the Liberty Plaza building in downtown Salem, Dennis Randazzo of the ProCom Commercial Group in Portland, who also told me that alternative locations exist in addition to Liberty Plaza.

Liberty Plaza was mentioned at the April meeting of the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council as one of three top candidates to house a temporary library, the other two being the Capital Press building and the Vick building.

The Vick building is no longer available, but Liberty Plaza is, according to Randazzo. He told me that City staff toured Liberty Plaza, which is mostly vacant. He's very much open to discussing use of Liberty Plaza for a temporary library. It certainly seems to be an option that City officials should have taken more seriously.

Jim Scheppke, who served as director of the library for the State of Oregon for 20 years, took a look at Liberty Plaza a few days ago. He told me that in his opinion, it would make a good temporary library. He sent me this email:

Hi Brian: I went to look at Liberty Plaza today. If you are downtown you ought to have a look. I don’t know why it would not work for the temporary library. The ground floor is entirely empty with two big spaces on both sides of the foyer and offices in back. I also heard in one of the Subcommittee meetings that the basement floor is empty, but you can’t get down there.

Too bad this was not chosen. I think it could have worked. If money was short, both the Library Foundation and even the Library Advisory Board has discretionary funds that they control. They could have chipped in some extra money if they had been asked.

A missed opportunity.Jim

Well, maybe this isn't a missed opportunity.

I believe the City Council could reconsider its decision to enter into a lease agreement with the Salem Alliance Church, which has one giant drawback: members of the LGBTQ community in Salem, along with other people who support LGBTQ rights, have said they won't use the library if it is housed in the church-owned building.

At the very least, several city councilors should discuss with Dennis Randazzo what space is available to lease in Liberty Plaza, and the cost of that space. Randazzo told me that while the owner of Liberty Plaza would like to sell the building, a two year lease for a temporary library would be entertained.

Here's some photos I took today of my own visit to Liberty Plaza.

I parked in the adjacent City of Salem parking structure. There were lots of empty spaces.

A skybridge leads from the parking structure to Liberty Plaza. Hard to beat that for convenience.

The hours shown on the skybridge door are appealing. I believe City staff have said that the library couldn't be open on Sunday if it is housed in the Capital Press building because the Salem Alliance Church generates so much traffic on Sundays.

As Randazzo told me, there are many vacant spaces in Liberty Plaza. A PDF file shows the layout of several floors, though almost certainly it isn't entirely accurate as regards current tenants, since I saw a recent notice on a vacant space about a termination of a lease agreement.

Looking at the two big spaces on the ground floor, it looked to me like you could put the children’s dept. in the space to the left as you enter and put a selection of adult books in the space to the right along with public internet computers. There is a nice service desk already there in the space on the left.

The outside of Liberty Plaza is appealing, as is its central location in downtown Salem.

And there's plenty of evidence that space exists to lease.

I and other supporters of LGBTQ rights in Salem want very much for the City Council to take a more active role in assessing alternatives to the church-owned building, assuming one or more councilors are interested in reconsidering the vote on the Salem Alliance Church lease -- which got very little discussion at the July 22 meeting, especially considering that almost all of the public testimony was in opposition to the Capital Press lease.

So it sure seems like a full disclosure of the cost of using Liberty Plaza as a temporary library needs to be made to Salem citizens, along with the pros and cons of Liberty Plaza and the Capital Press building.

I readily admit that I don't trust City of Salem staff to do this, because they have shown a decided preference for using the Salem Alliance Church property -- for reasons that aren't entirely clear.

I'd like to see a offer sheet from the owners of Liberty Plaza that details what spaces would be available for a temporary library, along with the cost and terms of a two-year lease.

Then the City Council could make an informed decision between Liberty Plaza and the Capital Press building, ideally along with several other viable alternative locations.

July 28, 2019

OK, it's a truism that when a headline includes a question mark, the answer usually is "No." But I'm not asking if something is wrong with officials at the City of Salem, Oregon variety. (Not to be confused with the witch'y Salem in Massachusetts.)

Rather, it seems clear to me -- based on the evidence below -- that City officials indeed are acting in decidedly screwy ways. But I'm not sure what the cause of that screwy wrongness is. I'll throw out one idea at the end of this post. Feel free to add your own in a comment.

For those unfamiliar with how city government here in Salem is organized, these are some basic facts.

(1) We have a strong City Manager, weak Mayor/City Council setup. The Mayor and eight city councilors make up the City Council. Those nine people have no staff of their own. They aren't even paid, being volunteers. So they're dependent on City officials for just about everything.

Steve Powers, City Manager

(2) Policies supposedly are established by the City Council, then implemented by the City Manager and his staff (the current City Manager is Steve Powers). But as I said in the above-linked blog post:

So as a City of Salem web page says, "While the City Council and Mayor set laws, policies and goals for the City of Salem, the City Manager and City Departments implement them."

Thus there's a considerable inertia that has to be overcome before citizens start seeing tangible signs of changed policies.

Here's some examples of what's been going wrong at City Hall lately.

Climate Action Plan being knowingly weakened. Steve Powers, the City Manager, knows full well that the Climate Action Plan called for in the Strategic Plan approved by the City Council is intended to have a broad scope, including carbon pollution being emitted everywhere in Salem.

Hopefully the City Manager isn't trying to undermine the Climate Action Plan. But his past actions, where Powers knowingly lied about the nature of the Climate Action Plan, certainly call into question his good intentions.

Open Streets event cancelled for 2019. Salem keeps slipping in comparison to other Oregon cities when it comes to being cycling-friendly. We're going backwards, not forwards, in national assessments of how easy and enjoyable it is to ride a bicycle in Salem.

In 2013, 2014, and 2015 there was a Salem Sunday Streets event. Then it was cancelled in 2016. It came back in 2017 and 2018. Now it has been cancelled again. Here's part of my 2016 post, "Tell City officials you want a bigger and better Salem Sunday Streets."

I don't know why the City of Salem's support for Salem Sunday Streets has slipped so much.

Being a citizen activist on various local issues, I'm concerned that the folks currently running City Hall are letting their lust for a billion dollar Third Bridge across the Willamette take precedence over much-needed improvements to Salem's cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

The more people experience the joy of getting around town without a car, the less need there will be for an already unnecessary Third Bridge and other costly expansions of Salem's roads. Fred Kent, founder of the Project for Public Spaces, is quoted in a book I'm reading, "This Is Where You Belong."

"If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places."

City officials kept on pushing for a Third Bridge long after it was obvious that a majority on the City Council favored killing this boondoggle, which eventually happened.

Likewise, City officials are dragging their feet on improving the ability of residents to get around town on bicycles, as evidenced by the lack of support for Open Streets events that are wildly popular in Portland, Eugene, and other Oregon cities. So what gives?

Steve Powers reportedly was a cyclist when he came to Salem for the City Manager job from Ann Arbor, Michigan.

But he is doing exactly nothing, so far as I can tell, to wean City officials off of their addiction to big expensive road improvements that are aimed at what the Breakfast on Bikes blogger calls "hydraulic autoism" -- a mindless continuation of failed transportation policies that are a major contributor to the global warming caused by carbon pollution.

Crazy public library policies. Librarians have a reputation of being pleasingly boring. When was the last time you heard a director of a public library call for something that makes citizens think, WTF?

But Sarah Strahl, the director of the Salem Public Library, along with other City officials, have been involved in two decidedly WTF policy decisions recently that have bothered people who previously were strongly supportive of the library.

First, Strahl and Co. engaged in a massive book removal effort called by opponents of this bad idea, the Big Weed. City officials never were able to explain why they wanted to discard so many books for no good reason. They just kept on doing it, until the City Council stepped in and the Big Weed was first paused, then stopped entirely.

Second, somehow Strahl and other City officials thought it would be a great idea to house a temporary library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, the most notorious anti-LGBTQ rights organization in Salem.

Unsurprisingly, a large public outcry resulted.

The Salem Human Rights Commission unanimously voted to oppose this plan, since members of the LGBTQ community wouldn't use the library if it was in a building owned by a church that considers them second-class citizens (the church rejects same-sex marriage and considers same-sex sex to be a sin).

City officials in Salem choose gay-hating church to house public library, tell LGBTQ people to head to Portland or Eugene if they want to read books during next two years

SALEM, OREGON -- Last Monday the Salem City Council voted 6-1 to pay the Salem Alliance Church for use of a building the church owns as a temporary public library, ignoring pleas from members of the LGBTQ community.

"We won't use the library if it is in a building owned by a church that considers us second-class citizens," said one exceedingly gay person wearing a purple blazer and a perfectly matching tie who testified at the council meeting, wiping away tears as they spoke.

City officials came in for criticism after claiming that in Oregon's capital city, which has a popularion of over 160,000, there were no other buildings available to lease with 16,000 square feet of empty space.

When asked to comment on this claim, a commercial realtor in Salem fell to the ground laughing uproariously for a full five minutes, then said, "Great joke! You're kidding me, right?"

A spokesman for the City of Salem issued this statement at a news conference where reporters asked how anyone could think it was a good idea to house the public library in the most un-gay-friendly building in the city.

"Hey, this is Salem. We aren't exactly known for being cutting-edge in anything, including human rights. Anyone who lives here and is lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, or whatever the heck 'Q' stands for, should understand that Portland and Eugene are the LGBTQ hot spots in western Oregon.

They've got public libraries that would be glad to check out books to members of our community who have the unreasonable expectation of using a library building that isn't owned by a homophobic organization. Just an hour's drive away, assuming you don't hit a traffic jam, which, in the case of Portland, is pretty much anytime. Suck it up, gay people."

So again, I'm convinced City of Salem officials all-too-often are on the wrong track when it comes to important policy decisions Why this is happening is unclear.

The leaders of an organization create a climate within which employees operate. So the City Manager, Steve Powers, bears the most responsibility for what's been going wrong at City Hall. Problem is, I don't sense much enthusiasm or interest among City Council members in ending those screw-ups.

Which means, likely we can expect more things going wrong at the City of Salem in the future.

UPDATE: Yikes! I forgot to include this tweet from Salem's famous Angry Owl about huge cost overruns on the new Police Facility being built by the City of Salem. But, hey, what's a few million dollars to City officials? They can always get citizens to pay more in taxes. Which just happened.

July 24, 2019

Last Monday, July 22, I was as angry as I've ever been at a decision by the Salem City Council. With the passage of two days, I'm even more convinced that what six of seven councilors in attendance at the meeting did was wrong.

And not just a little bit wrong. A lot wrong. Hugely wrong. Stupendously wrong.

Please, scroll down and watch the four videos I made of the people who testified in person during the 3-minute public comment period, arguing against the really bad idea of temporarily housing the Salem Public Library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church -- which denies LGBTQ rights with fundamentalist religious relish.

I was almost moved to tears by the testimony of three people who are either past or present members of the Salem Human Rights Commission, which unanimously voted to oppose the City of Salem bestowing hundreds of thousands of dollars upon the Salem Alliance Church to lease the old Capital Press building. (I also testified.)

But not one city councilor, nor the Mayor, asked any questions of these supporters of LGBTQ rights. Neither did any councilor, nor the Mayor, express one word of sympathy, understanding, or compassion to these people, who said that they wouldn't be able to use the library if it was located in a building owned by an organization that denies basic human rights.

Instead, the Mayor and city councilors sat there like uncaring stones, seemingly unmoved by the heartfelt testimony of David Rollings, Tricarico Schwarz, Cary Renfro, and myself. I read statements from three of the 285 people who have signed the "Stand Up for LGBTQ Rights in Salem!" petition that I started.

I'll share those statements after the videos.

What further griped me about the 6-1 City Council vote is that both the Mayor and city councilors failed to ask City officials about their highly dubious assertion that in a city of over 160,000, there isn't a single alternative location with around 16,000 square feet available for a two-year lease to temporarily house the library.

As I said in my testimony, when I asked a commercial realtor about this, they almost laughed before responding, "Of course there are other locations. They just might cost more than the Capital Press building."

So no one on the City Council cared enough about making the temporary library accessible to everybody in the community, including members of the LGBTQ communities, to ask any questions of staff about how much extra it would cost to lease a building other than the church-owned building.

I was angry when I wrote the following Facebook post immediately after watching the City Council approve the lease with the Salem Alliance Church via CCTV. My feelings haven't changed.

Again, more important than my words is the following video testimony of the three past and present members of the Salem Human Rights Commission.

It's galling that the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council decided to ask the Commission to weigh in on this issue, then the City Council totally ignored the Commission's strong statement rejecting the church-owned building, which called for an alternative location to be chosen even it it cost more and was less efficient operationally.

Here's my Monday night Facebook post.

LGBTQ rights just got trashed by the Salem City Council. After hearing from numerous people in our city's LGBTQ communities that they wouldn't use a temporary library if it was housed in the Capital Press building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, which rejects same sex marriage and views same sex-sex as a sin, I'm pretty sure nearly every councilor just said in effect, "Deal with it, LGBTQ people."

So Mayor Bennett, and councilors Chris Hoy, Jim Lewis, Brad Nanke, Cara Kaser, and Matt Ausec just joined the Human Rights Hall of Shame. I'm especially disgusted at how our supposedly progressive councilors voted. Jackie Leung was the exception, since she voted No. (Councilors Tom Andersen and Sally Cook were excused from the meeting.)

I plan to make a video of the heartfelt testimony from three members of the LGBTQ communities who spoke about how bad it would be if the City of Salem rewarded the Salem Alliance Church's bigotry with a big fat lease contract.

This has woken me up to something I've been reluctant to admit. The progressive majority on the City Council is that in name only. When push comes to shove, when they're forced to take a moral stand, too often too many of them take the easy way out.

I'm disgusted at Hoy, Kaser, and Ausec. This is a sad moment for human rights in Salem. When you see the video of the people testifying who GENUINELY stand up for human rights, you'll understand what I mean.

Here’s three of the comments from petition signers who live in Salem. They echo the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission.

"If the Salem Alliance Church wants to be against same sex marriage then so be it. However, our tax dollars should not go to this church. The city would be funding their anti LGBTQ views. NO, NO, NO to this location being the temporary home of the Salem Library. Why should my tax dollars go to an organization who believes my marriage is wrong and immoral??? My family will stop using the library if the city insists on housing the library on the property of this homophobic organization.”

"The discriminatory practices of Salem Alliance Church and harmful, derogatory beliefs held by the pastor directly affect the lives of myself and my loved ones in negative ways. While I support the missions of Broadway on a broader spectrum, I do not want to support city money going towards the Salem Alliance Church.”

"The city should not house any public and publicly funded operations in private holdings, especially ecclesiastical holdings, even temporarily. The particular church in question, while doing many things that do serve the community at large, is anti LGBTQ+ in it's practices. Housing the library in a building owned by a church that gives to the community with one hand while actively preaching against the equality of specific members of that community will make those members of the community hesitate to use library services for the duration of the situation. There are many large, empty buildings in Salem, surely one can be found for a reasonable price that doesn't belong to a discriminatory entity."

UPDATE: It occurred to me that while this subject is serious, there's room for some Onion'esque humor in how City officials and the City Council have managed to take what should have been a routine task of finding a widely acceptable temporary home for the public library while renovations are being made to the Civic Center building, and turned it into a freaking human rights nightmare.

----------------------

City officials in Salem choose gay-hating church to house public library, tell LGBTQ people to head to Portland or Eugene if they want to read books during next two years

SALEM, OREGON -- Last Monday the Salem City Council voted 6-1 to pay the Salem Alliance Church for use of a building the church owns as a temporary public library, ignoring pleas from members of the LGBTQ community.

"We won't use the library if it is in a building owned by a church that considers us second-class citizens," said one exceedingly gay person wearing a purple blazer and a perfectly matching tie who testified at the council meeting, wiping away tears as they spoke.

City officials came in for criticism after claiming that in Oregon's capital city, which has a popularion of over 160,000, there were no other buildings available to lease with 16,000 square feet of empty space.

When asked to comment on this claim, a commercial realtor in Salem fell to the ground laughing uproariously for a full five minutes, then said, "Great joke! You're kidding me, right?"

A spokesman for the City of Salem issued this statement at a news conference where reporters asked how anyone could think it was a good idea to house the public library in the most un-gay-friendly building in the city.

"Hey, this is Salem. We aren't exactly known for being cutting-edge in anything, including human rights. Anyone who lives here and is lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, or whatever the heck 'Q' stands for, should understand that Portland and Eugene are the LGBTQ hot spots in western Oregon.

They've got public libraries that would be glad to check out books to members of our community who have the unreasonable expectation of using a library building that isn't owned by a homophobic organization. Just an hour's drive away, assuming you don't hit a traffic jam, which, in the case of Portland, is pretty much anytime. Suck it up, gay people."

July 17, 2019

This afternoon I submitted advance testimony to the City Council in support of the Salem Human Rights Commission's rejection of the plan to use a building owned by the LGBTQ-unfriendly Salem Alliance Church as a temporary home for the Salem Public Library.

Yeah, I'm wordy.

But I wanted to cover the arguments in favor of finding another location for a temporary library that wouldn't cause members of the LGBTQ communities in our town to stop going to the library for the 18 months or so it will take for renovations to the library building at the Civic Center to be completed.

I think I make a lot of sense.

But since I'm me, that's to be expected. My favorite part of the testimony didn't come from me. It came from three people who left some passionate reasons for why they signed the "Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!" petition I started five days ago.

I shared those reasons, which wonderfully reflected the Human Rights Commission statement in opposition to leasing the church-owned building. Here's what went off to the City of Salem today. (The formatting is a bit screwed-up due to copy and pasting from my email message.)-----------------------------------------

Here’s advance testimony for the Library Relocation agenda item that I’ve been told by City staff will be discussed, and possibly acted on, at the July 22 City Council meeting.

(1) Submission of 227 petition signatures in support of the Salem Human Rights Commission. Last Friday, five days ago, I started a petition on the Care2 platform, “Stand up for LGBTQ rights in Salem!” The petition reads:

City officials want to temporarily house the Salem Public Library in a building owned by a church that rejects gay marriage and considers same-sex sex to be a sin. The Salem Human Rights Commission has taken a stand against this bad plan.

Support the Commission and send a message to the City Council in support of LGBTQ rights by signing this petition. There are alternative places to temporarily house the library while renovations are made. On July 22, the City Council likely will discuss this issue.

The Human Rights Commission statement said:

"The Salem Human Rights Commission (Commission) is deeply concerned about the proposed lease of the property owned by the Salem Alliance Church for the temporary location of the Salem Public Library.

The Commission values having a library that they can reasonably expect all persons will access, to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the City's Human Rights Code. The Commission believes that some members of the community, including some in LGBTQ communities, will not be comfortable accessing the space.

…The Commission respectfully requests that the City review the available properties for other potential options, and select another location, even if that location is not as ideal in cost or operations.”

Here’s a PDF file prepared by Care2 of the petition as it stands now, Wednesday afternoon. I’ll submit updated results at the July 22 City Council meeting.

City Recorder, please print out the 11 pages of the petition's PDF file as part of my advance testimony. It contains many comments submitted by signers that explain why they support this petition that often are quite moving,

Here’s three of the comments from petition signers who live in Salem. They echo the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission.

"If the Salem Alliance Church wants to be against same sex marriage then so be it. However, our tax dollars should not go to this church. The city would be funding their anti LGBTQ views. NO, NO, NO to this location being the temporary home of the Salem Library. Why should my tax dollars go to an organization who believes my marriage is wrong and immoral??? My family will stop using the library if the city insists on housing the library on the property of this homophobic organization."

"The discriminatory practices of Salem Alliance Church and harmful, derogatory beliefs held by the pastor directly affect the lives of myself and my loved ones in negative ways. While I support the missions of Broadway on a broader spectrum, I do not want to support city money going towards the Salem Alliance Church."

"The city should not house any public and publicly funded operations in private holdings, especially ecclesiastical holdings, even temporarily. The particular church in question, while doing many things that do serve the community at large, is anti LGBTQ+ in it's practices. Housing the library in a building owned by a church that gives to the community with one hand while actively preaching against the equality of specific members of that community will make those members of the community hesitate to use library services for the duration of the situation. There are many large, empty buildings in Salem, surely one can be found for a reasonable price that doesn't belong to a discriminatory entity."

I want to note that one of the petition signers is Jim Scheppke, an avid supporter of the library who worked hard to pass the bond measure that is funding the renovation of the Salem Public Library. He was director of the Library for the State of Oregon for 20 years. Here’s Scheppke’s comment:

"Our library has enough problems as it is. It doesn't need to alienate a significant portion of our community (and for good reason). Take the time to find another site for the temporary library."

Since the petition was shared on social media, signers are from a wide variety of places. However, 157 of the first 227 signers have a Salem or Keizer address, with many more being from nearby areas such as Silverton, Albany, Turner, and such.

(2) Human Rights Commission statement. Though members of the City Council and other City officials likely have read the statement of the Salem Human Rights Commission, I wanted to be sure that it is entered into the record. Here it is, in both PDF and print form.

Salem Human Rights Commission statement concerning the potential lease of property owned by the Salem Alliance Church for the temporary relocation of the Salem Public Library.

The Salem Human Rights Commission (Commission) is deeply concerned about the proposed lease of the property owned by the Salem Alliance Church for the temporary location of the Salem Public Library. The Commission values having a library that they can reasonably expect all persons will access, to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s Human Rights Code. The Commission believes that some members of the community, including some in LGBTQ communities, will not be comfortable accessing the space.

The purpose of the Commission is to promote harmonious relations within the city, examine sources of tension, practices of discrimination and act of prejudice in the city, and make recommendations concerning solutions to specific problems of prejudice or discrimination. The Commission will continue to be available for reports of discrimination in the community.

The Commission fully understands and supports freedom of religion and expression for all people, including faith based organizations. One of the Commission’s roles is to actively assist persons who experience discrimination based upon religion.

This commitment to freedom of religion, however, does not allow for the Commission to be in support of this business transaction. It is offensive to some members of the Salem community for the City to enter into a contract with, and pay money to, an entity that may be experienced as unwelcoming to members of the LGBTQ community.

The Commission strongly supports and appreciates the mission and programing of the Salem Public Library. The Library plays a critical role in providing a welcoming and supportive environment for all members of the community, particularly members of the community that are vulnerable, our youth, and those of limited means. Locating the Library at the proposed site will result in a Library that some members of the community, not only the LGBTQ, will not be willing to visit, and will negatively impact the Library’s mission.

The Commission has been informed that this location is the only adequate property available for the Library relocation, and that if the City does not use this space, only the west Salem library branch will be open during the renovation.

The Commission respectfully requests that the City review the available properties for other potential options, and select another location, even if that location is not as ideal in cost or operations. In the event that the City must use this location, the Commission recommends that the City Council publicly proclaim the City’s support and adherence to the purpose and intent of the City’s Human Rights Code, particularly as applied to the LGBTQ community, and urge all of the city’s residents to support and encourage a city free of discriminatory barriers. Further, the City should affirm that the City, particularly the Library, is open and welcoming to all members of the Community, and that the City is committed to ensuring that the Library will remain so during its relocation. The Commission and the LGBTQ Task Force is committed to working with the Salem Public Library to develop options to make the Library’s temporary space accessible, welcoming and inclusive to all.

Approved by the Human Rights Commission July 2, 2019

______________________________________ Danielle Meyer, Chair,

on behalf of the Human Rights Commission

(3) My testimony regarding the Human Rights Commission statement. It is important to note that the clear preference of the Commission is for City officials to find another location for a temporary library other than the church-owned Capital Press building, even if that alternative costs more and is less efficient in terms of library operations.

The key reason for this stand by the Human Rights Commission is that members of the LGBTQ communities will not be comfortable accessing the church-owned space, and some will avoid going to the library altogether during the 18 months or so the temporary space will be used.

I’ve heard arguments that the City of Salem contracts with other religious organizations, so why not the Salem Alliance Church? Well, the Salem Public Library is unique among social services provided by the City of Salem. It is intended to be a welcoming place for everyone in the community. Repeat, everyone.

The Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council spent considerable time at its June meeting discussing the fact of the Salem Alliance Church being opposed to LGBTQ rights, and how this would impact use of the library if the Capital Press building was leased as a temporary library location.

I heard it said on the audio recording of the meeting (written minutes aren’t available) that the situation is akin to why some people refuse to shop at Walmart, Amazon, Hobby Lobby, or such. It isn’t that these places aren’t welcoming to everybody, since they embrace anybody with cash to spend.

Rather, people have objections to certain practices followed by these organizations, including how they treat their employees, their effect on other businesses, their commitment to social justice/equity (or lack thereof), and so on. The same applies if the City of Salem were to use the church-owned building as a temporary library.

What bothers many people, including me, is that the Salem Alliance Church considers LGBTQ people to be second-class citizens. Perhaps this sounds overly harsh. I disagree. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it is practiced by a religious organization or anyone else.

If a corporation made it known that they oppose same-sex marriage and consider same-sex sex to be a sin, wouldn’t people who support LGBTQ rights be justified in boycotting that corporation? Why should bigotry founded in a controversial interpretation of the Old Testament be exempt from such outrage?

At the June meeting of the Library Renovation Committee meeting, city councilor Jim Lewis had a “love it or leave it” attitude toward those who oppose the City of Salem paying the Salem Alliance Church for a lease on the Capital Press building. Lewis said:

"This is a business transaction. The church has a right to work within its rules. Our job here is to find the best facility for the library. And if that means someone won't go to it, so be it."

That led someone else to respond:

"I disagree. We have an obligation to make sure we have a space that is open and welcoming to the community. I'm not saying that we shouldn't go there [to the church-owned building]. I'm just saying we have a [Human Rights] Commission. We have a process. If there are things we can do to help mitigate those concerns, I think we should do them."

So City staff went to meetings of both the LGBTQ Human Rights Task Force of the Human Rights Commission and the Commission itself. They explained how welcoming and inclusive the temporary library would be, given that it would be run by City of Salem employees.

Then they got the response back from the Human Rights Commission expressed in the statement above.

"The Commission respectfully requests that the City review the available properties for other potential options, and select another location, even if that location is not as ideal in cost or operations."

So given that the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council decided to ask the Human Rights Commission how it felt about use of the church-owned building for a temporary library, and the Commission basically said find another place, even if it costs more and is less efficient, the burden now is on City officials to prove that no other building in Salem exists that has 16,000 square feet or so of available space.

(That’s the size of the Capital Press building.)

The City Council is faced with a difficult decision. Three options appear open to the Council, none of them ideal.

A. Select a location for the temporary library that doesn’t carry with it the baggage of the property being owned by an organization opposed to LGBTQ rights. This is the preference of the Human Rights Commission, which I agree with.

B. Enter into a lease with the Salem Alliance Church to use the Capital Press building as a temporary library. This will lead many in the LGBTQ communities to avoid going to the library, and will send a signal that the City of Salem doesn’t fully endorse LGBTQ rights.

C. Require citizens to use the West Salem branch of the library while renovations are being made to the library’s main Civic Center building. This would be better than no library at all for 18 months.

July 16, 2019

I get it. It's summer. The living is mostly easy. There's so many causes -- political, social, cultural -- that demand your attention. But please give some serious thought to spending a few minutes to help some people close to home: Salem's LGBTQ communities.

Here's the issue they need your help with.

The Salem Public Library has to be relocated while renovations are made to the library building at the Civic Center. City officials favor using the old Capital Press building adjacent to the Broadway Commons as a temporary library.

Problem is, the Capital Press building is owned by the Salem Alliance Church, as is the Broadway Commons. The church isn't LGBTQ friendly.

Now, if you're either already familiar with this issue, or don't need further convincing to support the LGBTQ communities in Salem who oppose leasing of the church-owned property for a temporary public library, I urge you to do one or more of these things as soon as possible -- since the City Council will be discussing this issue, and likely acting on it, at the Monday, July 22 council meeting.

(2) Submit advance testimony for the July 22 City Council meeting to [email protected] with a "cc" to [email protected] Include your full name and address. Express support for the Human Rights Commission position that a different location than the church-owned building should be found for a temporary library, even if that location is more costly and less efficient in terms of operations. Note that alternative locations have been identified by City staff.

(3) Testify in person during the three-minute public comment period at the Monday, July 22 City Council meeting, 6 pm at the council chambers in City Hall (555 Liberty St. SE). Sign up before the meeting, indicating which agenda item you’re testifying on. Read your testimony if desired, but often testimony has more of an impact if it's spoken while looking at the council members and comes from the heart, as well as the head.

OK, with this important citizen activism request out of the way, we return to the subject of this blog post: why Salem's LGBTQ communities need the help described in 1-3 above.

I also shared a letter to the editor in the Statesman Journal calling for a boycott. So it wasn't surprising that the Salem Human Rights Commission voted unanimously to reject the plan to use the church-owned building for a temporary library, even if an alternative location costs more and is less efficient in terms of operations.

And that vote occurred after City officials met with both the LGBTQ Rights Task Force of the Human Rights Commission, and the Commission itself. Thus the decision to oppose using the Capital Press building during the library's relocation period (18 months or so) was well-informed, given that those officials hoped to convince the Human Rights Commission to support use of the church-owned building.

"The Salem Human Rights Commission (Commission) is deeply concerned about the proposed lease of the property owned by the Salem Alliance Church for the temporary location of the Salem Public Library.

The Commission values having a library that they can reasonably expect all persons will access, to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the City's Human Rights Code. The Commission believes that some members of the community, including some in LGBTQ communities, will not be comfortable accessing the space.

…The Commission respectfully requests that the City review the available properties for other potential options, and select another location, even if that location is not as ideal in cost or operations."

There are indeed other properties available to serve as a temporary library. I'm confident of this because I've listened to audio recordings of several meetings of the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council, including the most recent meeting in June.

Daniel Rollings, president of the Salem chapter of PFLAG, a national organization that advocates for LGBTQ rights, said the plan is still tantamount to partnering with a hate group.

“I am completely opposed to the city partnering with any organization, regardless of what it is, that actively discriminates against anyone,” he said. “The city should not put out bids to work with the (Ku Klux Klan) nor should they work with anti-LGBTQ organizations that actively discriminate against the LGBTQ community.”

If you find what Rollings said to be unduly provocative, here's how I see the situation.

Imagine an alternative reality. Most people are gay, attracted to the same sex. But there's a minority who are heterosexual. One of the largest churches in Salem wants to lease a building to the City of Salem for a temporary library. It's well known that the church will only marry LGBTQ individuals. And it considers sex between people of the opposite sex to be a sin.

If you're heterosexual, wanting to marry a woman if you're a man, or a man if you're a woman, would you feel comfortable using a library in a building owned by a church that denies your right to marry? And not only that. Whether you're married or not, the church says that you shouldn't be having sex with someone of the opposite gender, because that would be a sin.

How would you feel about taxpayer money being used to lease space in a building that opposes what you consider to be fundamental human rights: the right to marry whoever you love, and the right to have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex?

Speaking as a heterosexual man, I wouldn't like that at all.

Which is why I'm supporting the Human Rights Commission, because I understand why members of Salem's LGBTQ communities don't want the City of Salem to lease space from a church that denies their basic human rights.

July 14, 2019

We love facts here at the Salem Political Snark blog. We also adore opinions, which should be based on facts as much as possible.

So here's some facts about the controversial proposal of City officials to temporarily house the public library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, along with my opinions about those facts. Note: I'm going to send this blog post to officials at the City of Salem so they can check my facts.

First, though, I invite you to sign a petition I started last Friday in support of the Salem Human Rights Commission, which opposes the library using the church-owned building while renovations are occurring, given the church's opposition to same-sex marriage and its view that same-sex sex is a sin.

The following facts are based on the most recent meeting of the Library Renovation Council Subcommittee. I listened to the portion of the audio file of the June 18, 2019 meeting dealing with the relocation of the library, since apparently there are no written minutes of the meeting. (The Meeting Notes just consisted of the audio file.)

I jotted down quotes as I listened. The quotes from meeting participants (see above) shared in this post shouldn't be taken as a perfect transcript of what they said, but are accurate enough for blog post purposes. The discussion of finding a site to temporarily house the library was lengthy.

It often was difficult to know who was speaking. So if I'm confident about who said something, I'll identify them in a quote. Otherwise, I'll leave the quote unidentified. Here's the three facts that stood out for me.

(1) Seemingly there are alternatives to the building owned by the Salem Alliance Church. At the subcommittee's April meeting, three locations were mentioned as leading candidates to temporarily house the library: the church-owned Capital Press building, Liberty Plaza, and the Vick Building.

Some Googling shows that large spaces in Liberty Plaza no longer are available. But plenty of space in the Vick Building is still shown as available to be leased, 24,000 square feet on the first and second floors. I believe the library is only looking for around 15,000 square feet. The Capital Press building is 16,000 square feet.

And there was talk at the June meeting about a location that I believe was termed "Pringle Warehouse." It could be this listing, but I'm not sure. Regardless, I didn't hear anyone say the Capital Press building was the only option for the library. It just was viewed by City staff as the best option.

Library staff and others toured the Vick Building, but felt the Capital Press building was preferable. One reason is cost, since it was said repeatedly that if the lease (likely 18 months) cost less than was budgeted, the savings could be used for other library needs. This tells me that the City of Salem probably could afford to lease a different building, if this was necessary.

UPDATE: Today, July 17, I called the company that had the Vick Building up for sale or lease. I was told that a contract on the Vick Building has been signed, and it will be purchased within the next few months. So that option is gone for a temporary library.

(2) The Library Renovation Subcommittee was divided on the Capital Press building. Much of the discussion at the meeting centered around pushback from the community if the City of Salem leased space for the library from a church that is viewed as anti-LGBTQ rights, given its stance on same-sex marriage and same-sex sex. Here's some quotes:

"I think we're going to be dinged for it [using the church building], and I don't like it. I don't like giving money to a church that is discriminatory, and doesn't follow the law."

"My concern is that there are community groups that will not meet at that space [Broadway Commons, also owned by the church]. And if I can extrapolate, they would not meet at the library, if we were to be there [Capital Press building]. So that's a concern for me, and I'm just concerned we're going to limit the people who are going to come to the library for the next two years."

Now, my impression is that when the person quoted above said the church doesn't follow the law, this referred to the fact that same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in the United States. However, the Salem Alliance Church doesn't believe in same-sex marriage.

Others at the meeting argued that it is legal for a church to deny its members the right to be married by the church, which is correct. However, this didn't sway those who felt that the City of Salem shouldn't house the public library in a building owned by a group opposed to LGBTQ rights.

Near the end of the meeting, Public Works Director Peter Fernandez (whose voice I recognized) said in regard to leasing the church-owned building, "We're just going to have to hold our nose." Meaning, ignore something unpleasant. And in regard to going to the Human Rights Commission, Fernandez said, "We're just looking for some discussion and ultimately some cover."

Turns out, not only did the Human Rights Commission not give City officials any cover when it comes to leasing the Capital Press building, it actively opposed doing this.

(3) Most agreed that the Human Rights Commission should weigh-in on the LGBTQ rights issue. Given the back and forth between the Library Renovation Subcommittee members regarding the appropriateness of temporarily housing the library in a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church, there was general agreement that the Human Rights Commission should be asked how it feels about this.

What I found interesting is how optimistic most of the committee members were about getting the Human Rights Commission stamp of approval to lease the Capital Press building from the church. The plan was for several City of Salem staff members to first meet with the Commission's LGBTQ Rights Task Force, then with the Human Rights Commission itself.

The idea was to stress how welcoming and inclusive the temporary library would be to the LGBTQ community, even though the Salem Alliance Church was opposed to the fundamental rights of same-sex marriage and the ability to engage in same-sex sex without being termed a "sinner."

Listening to the audio recording of the meeting, it seems to me that the subcommittee didn't understand that just because a church has the legal right to discriminate against LGBTQ people, this doesn't mean that the City of Salem should funnel public funds into the Salem Alliance Church bank account, and force citizens who care about LGBTQ rights and also want to use the library to make a tough ethical decision during the renovation period.

I was able to make out the distinctive voice of Councilor Jim Lewis. Here's part of what he had to say:

"This is a business transaction. The church has a right to work within its rules. Our job here is to find the best facility for the library. And if that means someone won't go to it, so be it."

That led another committee member to say:

"I disagree. We have an obligation to make sure we have a space that is open and welcoming to the community. I'm not saying that we shouldn't go there [to the church-owned building]. I'm just saying we have a [Human Rights] Commission. We have a process. If there are things we can do to help mitigate those concerns, I think we should do them."

The Commission respectfully requests that the City review the available properties for other potential options, and select another location, even if that location is not as ideal in cost or operations.

So given that the Library Renovation Subcommittee of the City Council decided to ask the Human Rights Commission how it felt about use of the church-owned building for a temporary library, and the Commission basically said find another place, even if it costs more and is less efficient, the burden now is on City officials to prove that no other building in Salem is available.

Given that City staff clearly want to use the Capital Press building, I'm worried that the staff report going to the City Council won't honestly and accurately present the other options for housing the library. This needs to happen so the Council can assess the pros and cons of leasing space from a church that is anti-LGBTQ rights.

It seems to me that the wisest course of action would be to pick a different location for a temporary library. Indications are that this issue will be discussed, and possibly voted on, at the Monday, June 22 meeting of the Salem City Council.

I'll end by observing that our one and only daily print newspaper, the Statesman Journal, so far has failed to run a story about the Human Rights Commission opposing use of the church-owned building for a temporary library. I emailed two reporters at the Statesman Journal who cover city government, suggesting a story, but never got a reply.